Our Hierarchy of Needs

In his influential paper of 1943, A Theory of Human Motivation, the American psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed that healthy human beings have a certain number of needs, and that these needs are arranged in a hierarchy, with some needs (such as physiological and safety needs) being more primitive or basic than others (such as social and ego needs). Maslow’s so-called ‘hierarchy of needs’ is often presented as a five-level pyramid, with higher needs coming into focus only once lower, more basic needs are met.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow called the bottom four levels of the pyramid ‘deficiency needs’ because a person does not feel anything if they are met, but becomes anxious if they are not. Thus, physiological needs such as eating, drinking, and sleeping are deficiency needs, as are safety needs, social needs such as friendship and sexual intimacy, and ego needs such as self-esteem and recognition. In contrast, Maslow called the fifth level of the pyramid a ‘growth need’ because it enables a person to ‘self-actualize’ or reach his fullest potential as a human being. Once a person has met his deficiency needs, he can turn his attention to self-actualization; however, only a small minority of people are able to self-actualize because self-actualization requires uncommon qualities such as honesty, independence, awareness, objectivity, creativity, and originality.

Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been criticized for being overly-schematic and lacking in scientific grounding, it presents an intuitive and potentially useful theory of human motivation. After all, there is surely some grain of truth in the popular saying that one cannot philosophize on an empty stomach, and in Aristotle’s early observation that ‘all paid work absorbs and degrades the mind’.

Aristotle (right): 'Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.'

Once a person has met his deficiency needs, the focus of his anxiety shifts to self-actualization and he begins—even if only at a subconscious or semiconscious level—to contemplate the context and meaning of life. He may come to fear that death in inevitable and that life is meaningless, but at the same time cling on to the cherished belief that his life is eternal or at least important. This gives rise to an inner conflict that is sometimes referred to as ‘existential anxiety’ or, more colourfully, as ‘the trauma of non-being’.

Existential anxiety is so disturbing that most people avoid it at all costs. They construct an inauthentic but comforting reality made up of moral codes, bourgeois values, habits, customs, culture, and even— arguably—religion. The Harvard theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965) and indeed Freud himself suggested that religion is nothing more than a carefully crafted coping mechanism for existential anxiety. For Tillich true faith consists simply in ‘being vitally concerned with that ultimate reality to which I give the symbolical name of God.’

Paul Tillich: 'If my tongue were trained to measures, I would sing a stirring song.'

According to the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), by refusing to face up to ‘non-being’ a person is acting in ‘bad faith’, and so living out a life that is inauthentic and unfulfilling. Facing up to non-being can bring a sense of calm, freedom, even nobility and—yes—it can also bring insecurity, loneliness, responsibility, and consequently anxiety. But far from being pathological, this anxiety is a sign of health, strength, and courage. As Freud noted, ‘Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.'

For Tillich, refusing to face up to non-being not only leads to a life that is inauthentic, but also to neurotic anxiety. Tillich witheringly remarked that neurosis is ‘the way of avoiding non-being by avoiding being’. According to this outlook, neurotic anxiety arises from repressed existential anxiety, which itself arises from the nature of the human condition and, more specifically, from our uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness.

Facing up to non-being enables a person to put his life into perspective, see it in its entirety, and thereby give it a sense of direction and unity. If the ultimate source of anxiety is a fear of the future, the future ends in death; and if the ultimate source of anxiety if uncertainty, death is the only certainty. Facing up to death, accepting its inevitability, and integrating it into life not only cures one of neurosis, but also enables one to get and make the most out of life.

And it is even possible to be happy without friends (but please do see my articles on friendship). I am not 100% agreeing with Maslow, but using his interesting concepts as a point of departure for my article. Thank you for reading and for commenting.

I've always found Maslow's work to be interesting. The self-actualizing person which he studied and even found living examples of for us to examine and, perhaps emulate was always a concept I liked. My only problem with him early on was that I thought it was sad to think that some people could never self-actualize because they were so deprived on the basic need level. I know now that it is possible to change, to fulfill oneself, given the option.
Some people, even seem to be able to surpass that basic level and catapult to the more evolved states. Look at Mother Teresa, Ghandi and how about the Dalai Lama who has no home (that's pretty basic) and could be in danger if he thought about it that way.
Some nuns, priests, aesthets (sp?) give up basic needs purposely...

i agreed with you, but mind you that mother Theresa,Ghandi and others were specially empowered by God, which you can easily request from your source also,Abraham maslow will continue to be one of mine motivator's

I truly hate when something so important is glossed over like this!
Survival
Safety
Skin to skin contact ( non sexual )
Attention
Echoing
Guidance
Listening
Being real
Participating
Acceptance
Grieving
Support
Loyalty
Accomplishment
Altering ones state
Then sex!
Fun
Freedom
Nurturing
Love
Why is sex found in twice there is soooo much that wasn't even addressed. 20 items and you only choose what 10!

There could be arguments for days over what needs are important and not, most are however the list of needs goes on and on and on, so please excuse them for deciding to make this short enough to read by only including some needs. And Chill out, if you are aware of this then it doesn't matter and like...just chill out x

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is viewed and used daily, whether we realize it or not. It is the essential tool for our human needs. In order to move up the pyramid, one's needs have to be met or this will either lack or build our character as individuals. We also have other needs that are known as the cognitive needs. This is defined as innate needs to know and to understand as an individual. If we fail to reach the fifth stage of the pyramid (self-actualization), we could possibly undergo the Jonah complex because we are allowing fear and anxiety to control our lives. This is why Maslow's theory of our human needs are of importance.

"Although Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been criticized for being overly-schematic and lacking in scientific grounding, it presents an intuitive and potentially useful theory of human motivation."

So basically it's completely unscientific BS and therefore untrue or at least unreliable yet apparantly that doesn't matter to the author because hey, it sounds good. 'Potentially useful': lol. Really? Something may or may not be of use and therefore it is valuable? Something either works or it doesn't buddy, make up your mind.

When a scientific hypothesis cannot be verified empirically it's tossed aside and replaced by a new one or at least modified enough to be more in accord with the evidence pending further research. At least in real sciences yet in psychology reality apparantly doesn't matter much and ideology is passed of as fact and half-baked hypothesis' as true or at least 'useful'.

This only strengthens my opinion that psychology is largely a pseudo-science used to manipulate the gullible and provide an income for the leaders of the cult.

I know a Zara that is a sociopath with borderline personality disorder and a misanthrope. Into self mutilation and tatoos. A 'fire dancer'. Are you that person? What is the 'pseudoscience' that you believe in? I would like to read your intellectual musings on self-actualization and why you will live forever.

Hi Neel. What i like about this discussion is that once you recognize what is holding you back, you can be more free and healthy. This is what ancient and modern religion or spirituality is talking about. I've used the basic model of the hierarchy to break through the barriers of the basic needs and realize that they are not necessarily needs. Some of my earliest memories of breaking the bottom of the pyramid were in military survival training where I had nothing but felt strangely at peace. I would agree that the pyramid is too rigid and has it's flaws, but the basic idea works as a tool to help me see past our primal instincts. Do we accept the inevitable or lie to ourselves and miss the opportunity to touch 'zen'? Thanks for the article.

1) "some needs (such as physiological and safety needs) being more primitive" = Protoreptilian formation which contains the brainstem (and therefore can activate and deactivate the Paleomammalian formation/Limbic system and the Neomammalian formation/Neocortex if its own needs are not met [= 'Frustration-Regression Principle'] ?). Ask any duped husband.

2) Other needs "such as social and ego needs" = Paleomammalian formation/Limbic system

3) "Once a person has met his deficiency needs, the focus of his anxiety shifts to self-actualization and he begins ... to contemplate the context and meaning of life" = Neomammalian formation/Neocortex

Could we take this one step further and say that both people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPDs) and 'Co-Dependents' (= C-PTSDs?) have a badly damaged Paleomammalian formation/Limbic system -- owing to a massive deficiency in "social and ego [/nurturing] needs" during childhood [both often had an NPD mother lacking in basic nurturing skills, much like a reptile], with the difference being that NPD's rely heavily on their Protoreptilian formation (often behaving like animals completely lacking in normal social emotions such as empathy, and being very sexually-defined, as well as being extremely perceptive of [prehistoric] animal signals), and Co-Dependent's heavily favouring the Neocortex (and often being very objective, philosophical, and alone [given their lack of basic social skills])?

Has there ever been a great genius in the past (i.e. with an "over-developed" Neocortex) that did not have a traumatic childhood? Why do largely neglected orphans develop huge heads relative to the rest of their bodies (= huge Neocortexes ?)?